We performed a comparison between Micro Focus ALM Quality Center and Microsoft Azure Devops based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Azure DevOps is the winner in this comparison. According to reviews, Azure Devops is a powerful solution that is easier to set up, and less expensive than Quality Center.
"Microsoft has good integration with its other products, such as Office, Teams, et cetera."
"The solution integrates well with other Azure services and third-party tools."
"We can track everything from the requirements stage to the production stage."
"It is good for monitoring purposes. We are using the build pipelines of Microsoft Azure. They are also valuable."
"I like the tracking and that we can monitor our velocity."
"We can eliminate some of the middleman processes."
"The most valuable aspect of Azure DevOps for me is its robust version control functionality, which is critical for our workflow."
"It is good for the purpose it is designed for. It is good for maintaining a repository of application code, creating pipelines for deploying the code, building the code, and deploying the code. It can be easily used by developers. There are no issues."
"It provides visibility on release status and readiness."
"The execution module and the test planning module are definitely the most valuable features. The rest we use for traceability, but those are the two modules that I cannot live without."
"ALM Quality Center is a reliable, consolidated product."
"Having the links maintained within the tool is a huge boon to reporting requirements, tests, and defects."
"The setup is pretty straightforward."
"Test Execution (Test Lab): This allows us to track our manual tests with date and time and enter actual results and screenshots."
"The most valuable feature of Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is the alignment of the test to the execution and the linking of the defects to the two. It automatically links any issues you have to the test."
"You can plan ahead with all the requirements and the test lab set it up as a library, then go do multiple testing times, recording the default that's in the system."
"Proper Gantt charting should be a feature that is included because as it is now, we have to create it ourselves."
"Integration and plugins for other tools could better. Like if you want to integrate the DevOps with other tools that are in the market. This could be for the engineering tools to check code quality, application security tools, and DevOps dashboard tools."
"The user interface could be improved."
"Azure DevOps could be improved with more security plugins, especially for SaaS scanning and vulnerability scans."
"There are certain features, and reporting that can only be used in PowerBI, but not directly in DevOps."
"Microsoft Azure DevOps could improve by providing better integration with other tools. It is very easy to integrate with Azure, but when you need to integrate with other solutions, such as Amazon Web Services, is difficult."
"We did have some brief performance issues, however, that was due to putting everything on one epic instead of breaking a project up."
"I would like to see DevOps have the ability to give us something with a compatibility or traceability matrix."
"It can be quite clunky, and it can easily be configured badly, which I've seen in a couple of places. If it is configured badly, it can be very hard to use. It is not so easy to integrate with other products. I've not used Micro Focus in a proper CI/CD pipeline, and I haven't managed to get that working because that has not been my focus. So, I find it hard. I've often lost the information because it had committed badly. It doesn't commit very well sometimes, but that might have to do with the sites that I was working at and the way they had configured it."
"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center should improve the reports. Reporting on tax execution progress against the plan. However, they might have improved over two years since I have used the solution."
"The BPT also known as Business Process Testing can sometimes be very time intensive and sometimes might not be very intuitive to someone who is not familiar with BPT."
"The session timeout time needs to be longer in my opinion."
"The QA needs improvement."
"An area for improvement in Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is not being able to update the Excel sheet where I wrote the test cases. Whenever I update some test cases, I'm unsuccessful because there is overlapping data or missing cases from the sheet."
"Is not very user-friendly."
"As soon as it's available on-premises we want to move to ALM Octane as it's mainly web based, has the capability to work with major tests, and integrates with Jenkins for continuous integration."
More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Azure DevOps is ranked 2nd in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 127 reviews while OpenText ALM / Quality Center is ranked 6th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 197 reviews. Microsoft Azure DevOps is rated 8.2, while OpenText ALM / Quality Center is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Microsoft Azure DevOps writes "Allows us to deploy code to production without releasing certain features immediately and agile project management capabilities offer resource-leveling". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText ALM / Quality Center writes "Offers features for higher-end traceability and integration with different tools but lacks in scalability ". Microsoft Azure DevOps is most compared with GitLab, Jira, TFS, Rally Software and Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform, whereas OpenText ALM / Quality Center is most compared with OpenText ALM Octane, Jira, Tricentis qTest, Zephyr Enterprise and OpenText UFT One. See our Microsoft Azure DevOps vs. OpenText ALM / Quality Center report.
See our list of best Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites vendors.
We monitor all Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
